Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`Filed on behalf of TPK Touch Solutions Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS INC.
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR 2013-00567
`Case IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`PATENT OWNER REPLY SUPPORTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`Filed on behalf of TPK Touch Solutions Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS INC.
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR 2013-00567
`Case IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`PATENT OWNER REPLY SUPPORTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`TPK’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SHOULD BE GRANTED .......................1
`
`A.
`
`TPK’s Arguments Are Within the Scope of a Motion To Exclude ......1
`
`B. Wintek’s New Evidence and Arguments Are Irrelevant and
`Prejudicial..............................................................................................2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibits 1022 and 1023 and Corresponding Arguments............2
`
`Exhibit 1024 and Corresponding Arguments .............................3
`
`Exhibits 1028-1031 and Corresponding Arguments ..................4
`
`III. CONCLUSION................................................................................................5
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`LKQ Corp. v. Clearlamp, LLC,
`IPR2013-00020, Paper 17 (Mar. 5, 2013) .......................................................2
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inv. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................2
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 .......................................................................................................2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .......................................................................................................1
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48758 (Aug. 14, 2012)...................................................1
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`TPK 2002
`TPK 2003
`TPK 2004
`
`TPK 2005
`TPK 2006
`TPK 2007
`
`TPK 2008
`
`TPK 2009
`
`TPK 2010
`
`TPK 2011
`
`TPK Exhibit No. Document Description
`TPK 2001
`G. Barrett & R. Omote, “Projected-Capacitive Touch Tech-
`nology”
`Declaration of Joshua R. Smith
`Curriculum Vitae of Joshua R. Smith
`Walker, “Fundamentals of Touch Technologies and Applica-
`tions”
`Hotelling et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,920,129
`Geaghan, U.S. Patent No. 8,279,187
`Crosby, “Self Capacitive Sensing Brings Touch to Large-
`Screen Products”, Zytronic
`Walker, “Part 1: Fundamentals of Projected-Capacitive Touch
`Technology”
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Vivek Subramanian, June 11,
`2014
`Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review, Case IPR2013-
`00568 (not submitted)
`Decision – In the Matter of Certain Mobile Devices, and Re-
`lated Software Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-750
`Figure 2 from Japanese Published Patent Appl. No. 61-84729
`to Honeywell (excerpt of Wintek Ex. 1007)
`Information Display Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, March 2010
`Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review, Case IPR2013-
`00567 (not submitted)
`Testimony of Dr. Subramanian in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-750
`Binstead, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0188201
`Declaration of Ted Tsai in Support of Patent Owner’s Re-
`sponse
`Daiwa Capital Markets, March 2012 market report
`Amazon Kindle Electrode Structure (Filed Under Seal)
`iii
`
`TPK 2012
`
`TPK 2013
`TPK 2014
`
`TPK 2015
`TPK 2016
`TPK 2017
`
`TPK 2018
`TPK 2019
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`TPK 2021
`TPK 2022
`
`TPK 2023
`
`TPK Exhibit No. Document Description
`TPK 2020
`NPD DisplaySearch, Q1’14 Quarterly Touch Panel Market
`Analysis, April 2014
`Economic Daily News Article, February 2009
`J.P. Morgan, TPK Holding Co., Ltd. research report, October
`2012
`NPD Display Search, Touch Panel Market Analysis Q4’12
`Update, December 2012
`Stipulated Protective Order – Clean
`Stipulated Protective Order – Redlined
`Affidavit of Derek Tang
`Supplemental Affidavit of Derek Tang
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence, October 3, 2014
`
`TPK 2024
`TPK 2025
`TPK 2026
`TPK 2027
`TPK 2028
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION1
`TPK Touch Solutions Inc. (“Patent Owner”) submits this Reply in support of
`
`its Motion To Exclude Evidence (Paper 48, hereinafter “Motion”), which seeks ex-
`
`clusion of certain Exhibits and arguments submitted in connection with Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 44, hereinafter “Wintek’s Reply”).2
`
`II.
`
`TPK’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SHOULD BE GRANTED
`
`A. TPK’s Arguments Are Within the Scope of a Motion To Exclude
`
`TPK’s Motion seeks to exclude exhibits and arguments in Wintek’s Reply
`
`that are irrelevant and prejudicial, and therefore outside the scope of Fed. R. Evid.
`
`403. Accordingly, the substance of TPK’s Motion is squarely within the proper
`
`scope of a Motion To Exclude. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48758 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Admissibility of evidence is generally gov-
`
`1 TPK and Wintek have settled their pending disputes and the Board has author-
`
`ized the parties to file a Joint Motion To Terminate. Should the Board grant the
`
`parties’ Motion To Terminate, the present evidentiary dispute will be moot.
`
`2 Contrary to Wintek’s counsel’s representation, during the parties’ conference
`
`call, TPK specifically noted that Wintek had not responded to TPK’s objections
`
`and asked if Wintek would consider withdrawing the disputed exhibits and evi-
`
`dence. When Wintek refused, the parties conferred regarding TPK’s objections
`
`and were unable to reach agreement, necessitating TPK’s Motion.
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`erned by the Federal Rules of Evidence.”); LKQ Corp. v. Clearlamp, LLC,
`
`IPR2013-0020, Paper 17 at 3 (Mar. 5, 2013).
`
`In explaining the basis for its Mo-
`
`tion, TPK naturally is required to describe how the disputed evidence submitted
`
`by Wintek is irrelevant because it is of no consequence to any issue in dispute, and
`
`prejudicial because it does not actually support the points for which Wintek ap-
`
`pears to have presented it. See Fed R. Evid. 401 (“Evidence is relevant if . . . the
`
`fact is of consequence in determining the action.”). Wintek’s response that TPK’s
`
`motion is improper because it “reads like a substantive sur-reply” (Opp. at 2) simp-
`
`ly attempts to wave away the necessary context to adjudge the evidence, and
`
`should be disregarded.
`
`B. Wintek’s New Evidence and Arguments Are Irrelevant and Prejudicial
`
`Wintek's arguments in response to TPK’s Motion merely underscore that the
`
`newly submitted exhibits and arguments in Wintek’s Reply do not respond to
`
`TPK’s arguments and are not relevant to any issue in this proceeding; rather, they
`
`seek to cloud the issues actually in dispute and should be excluded.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibits 1022 and 1023 and Corresponding Arguments
`
`Wintek’s argument that U.S. Pat. No. 6,188,391 (Ex. 1022) purportedly
`
`demonstrates that commercial mutual-capacitive touch panels in use prior to the
`
`invention of the ’902 Patent used single-layer structures is factually incorrect.
`
`(Opp. at 4-6.) As Wintek admits, U.S. Pat. No. 6,188,391 contains no disclosure of
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`detecting a position of touch by measuring mutual capacitance. Id. Nevertheless,
`
`Wintek argues that the use of mutual capacitance is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,543,590 (Ex. 1023), and that U.S. Pat. No. 6,188,391 incorporates U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,543,590 by reference.
`
`(Id. at 5.) But the citation on which Wintek relies de-
`
`scribes only a prior art “four-level” capacitive structure, not a single-layer struc-
`
`ture. It is well settled that to show prior invention, a reference “must not only dis-
`
`close all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must
`
`also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inv. v. Ver-
`
`iSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The portions of U.S. Pat.. No.
`
`6,199,391 that Wintek argues disclose the use of a “single-layer” capacitive struc-
`
`ture make no reference to mutual capacitance or to U.S. Pat. No. 5,543,590—or
`
`any commercial products, for that matter—and should be excluded as nonrespon-
`
`sive to TPK’s arguments. Wintek’s arguments regarding these Exhibits should al-
`
`so be excluded as irrelevant, misleading and prejudicial.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1024 and Corresponding Arguments
`
`Contrary to Wintek’s argument, U.S. Pat. App. No. 2008/0309625 (Ex.
`
`1024) does nothing to rebut TPK’s observation that at the time of the filing of the
`
`’902 Patent, the market leader, Apple, was still relying on two-layer mutual-
`
`capacitance touch panels. Wintek does not dispute that U.S Patent App. No.
`
`2008/0309625 in fact postdates the ’902 Patent. Wintek also does not argue that
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Apple ever actually developed single-layer mutual capacitance touch panels.
`In-
`
`stead, Wintek attempts to gloss over its errors by arguing that U.S. Pat. App. No.
`
`2008/0309625 shows that “Apple did . . . have the concept of a single-layer mutual
`
`capacitance touch sensor in 2007.” (Opp. at 6 (emphasis added).) But what “con-
`
`cepts” Apple may or may not have had after the invention of the ’902 Patent are
`
`irrelevant to the state of the art at the time of the ’902 Patent. Thus, both Exhibit
`
`1024 and Wintek’s related arguments should be excluded.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibits 1028-1031 and Corresponding Arguments
`
`Wintek’s reliance on an expert declaration submitted by Dr. Gerpheide (Ex.
`
`1029) on behalf of Digital Empire in a different proceeding—in lieu of a declara-
`
`tion from its own expert, Dr. Subramanian—is improper. Dr. Gerpheide’s declara-
`
`tion relates to the novelty of U.S. Pat. No. 7,864,503 and has no relevance to the
`
`’902 Patent or the scope of its claims. Wintek’s response that Dr. Gerpheide once
`
`submitted an opinion during the prosecution of the ’902 Patent (Opp. at 7) has no
`
`bearing on the declaration in question. Moreover, Wintek’s attempt to import Dr.
`
`Gerpheide’s opinions on whether Binstead anticipates U.S. Pat. No. 7,864,503 into
`
`the present proceeding wholesale, without regard to the specific meanings of vari-
`
`ous terms (e.g., “cells” and “lines”) in the context of the ’902 Patent is inaccurate
`
`and misleading. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(“Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term ap-
`
`pears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.”). Dr.
`
`Gerpheide’s declaration offers no opinion as to whether Binstead anticipates or
`
`renders obvious the claims of the ’902 patent, and should not be admissible for that
`
`purpose.
`
`For the same reason, Exhibits 1028, 1030 and 1031 from Digital Empire’s
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,864,503 are irrelevant and preju-
`
`dicial. Digital Empire’s petition expresses no opinion regarding the ’902 Patent
`
`and is of no relevance to the construction of its claim terms or the scope of its
`
`claims when compared to the prior art.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner TPK respectfully requests that its
`
`Motion to Exclude be granted in its entirety.
`
`Date: November 21, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47024/
`Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47,024
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`David Bilsker, Reg. No. 39,611
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`Email: davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner –
`TPK Touch Solutions Inc.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR 2013-00567, IPR 2014-00541
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER RE-
`
`PLY SUPPORTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(c) was served electronically via e-mail on November 21, 2014, in its entirety
`
`on the following:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`Date: November 21, 2014
`
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`naveen.modi@paulhastings.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47024/
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 47,024
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-1092
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner –
`TPK Touch Solutions Inc.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
